Brexit and the war between Britain's two elites

Ten years on from the Brexit referendum. Economically, the outcome of leaving the single European market and Customs Union are clear; the UK's GDP per capita is between 4% and 8% smaller than it would have been had the UK remained in. Brexit has negatively impacted trade and investment; Britain exports less, employs fewer people, than its economy would have done otherwise.

Brexit didn't lead to a social and economic collapse; it's more like a slow puncture than a high-speed blow-out. Correct me if I'm wrong. but nothing is better in Britain today than it was before. [However, Brexiteers like to point out that since the end of 2019, the UK economy has grown by 6.0% compared to Germany's pathetic 0.8% growth. But then France grew by 6.6%, and Poland by 15.5%.]

Britain's polluted rivers and beaches are an excellent example; without EU regulatory safeguards, the national legislator (Westminster) was free to bow to pressure from the interests (the water companies, their CEOs and shareholders) and hey presto – 'costly red-tape' is removed. Bathing among bobbing turds is the result.

Another example. Migration from EU member states fell to a trickle after Brexit, but it was replaced by the 'Boris wave' with non-EU workers turning up legally in record numbers (long-term net inbound migration in the 12 months to March 2023 was an all-time high of 944,000, the bulk of those being health- and care workers). 

If you voted for Brexit without a clear plan for how leaving the EU would make you richer and more powerful, then you were gamed by those who did.

The stereotypical privately educated, swashbuckling Brexiteer would say: "I believe in free enterprise! Global trade unrestricted by Brussels! National sovereignty! Cut red tape for growth!" Yet in practice, this tended to mean: "I want maximum freedom to move capital, buy cheap inputs, outsource production, hire cheaper labour, avoid regulation, lower consumer standards and weaken labour-market protections." Meanwhile, the disadvantaged local worker experienced the consequences: insecure employment with zero-hours contracts, lower bargaining power, loss of status, degraded high streets and a sense that 'our people' were no longer valued. 

However, framed in the context of Brexit, the boss could present himself not as the agent of the changes negatively affecting the English white working class, but as a fellow victim: "Brussels made British business uncompetitive! EU regulation tied our hands! Free movement put pressure on services and wages! The political elite in London ignored you! Vote Leave and we will take back control!"

This was politically brilliant, turning the old class conflict into something external. So, instead of boss vs worker, it became local people vs Brussels, the UK vs the EU; common sense vs experts.

I would frame the Brexit referendum as a battle between two elites; the old and the new. The old – typically privately educated, full of ruling-class confidence, still imbued with the old national myths, feeling a need for sovereignty, and disdainful of bureaucratic constraint – especially if it flows from abroad. "From Harrow School/To rise and rule." The private-school-aristocratic tradition says: lead, improvise, command the room, trust instinct and treat bureaucracy as something for clerks. 

The new elite is quite different. From humbler backgrounds, humanities graduates from white-tile universities, grammar-school educated, believing in meritocracy, ethically guided and trusting expertise.

Brexiteers, be they the old elite or the put-upon working classes, see this new elite as the problem. "Woke theoreticians, who've never done a day's real work (plumbing, bricklaying, toolmaking, nursing, bus-driving) in their lives. Citizens of anywhere rather than citizens of somewhere."

There were two contradictory visions of the sunny uplands that would result from Brexit: a Singapore-on-Thames where freewheeling capitalism was to regain control; free to strike deals all over the world, bringing in cheaper labour from the former British colonies to supplant EU citizens; the other vision – an autarkic Brexit Britain with closed borders, tariff walls and a return to the certainties of the 1950s. The white working class longed for the latter. They were unwittingly fooled into voting for the former. 

You never saw this dark ad; funded by billionaires, it targeted the thick community

If you ask a Brexiteer why leaving the EU has been a failure, they will answer "it's because we've not had a proper Brexit." Probe further and they'll either tell you that a proper Brexit would have been total economic liberalisation, deregulation and full openness to trade with the Rest of the World, or else a proper Brexit that would have slammed shut the borders on just about everyone who's not British (or at least a native-speaker of English). Two entirely contradictory visions that mutually exclude one another. The nearest the UK got to the freewheeling capitalism vision was the 49-day-long premiership of Liz Truss. It turned out that the bond markets did not share that vision, preferring steady long-term returns to the kinds of risks taken by hedge-fund managers. 

EU membership, like Gaza, is one of those political issues that touches not the day-to-day lives of British voters. Call-in radio shows on LBC showed time and time again that the average Brexit voter, fired up by the notion that "no one in Brussels is going to tell them how to lead their lives" was unable to name a single EU law that has impacted their lives. Sovereignty is an emotion. 

Supreme lack of interest in EU matters converted into erroneous tropes ("unelected bureaucrats" – a bit like "unelected bus conductors") and going to the polls ten years ago not so much as to regain sovereignty (whatever that means) but to give a kicking to the incumbent prime minister David Cameron and his Tory government. The toffs and the oiks ganged up on the Guardianista blob and won.

Biggest Waitrose queue in history

Is this a negation of democracy? Yeah, kind of. People who could not explain the difference between an EU directive (transposed into national law by member states, allowing some variation) and an EU regulation (directly applicable and uniform across the single market) have no right to vote on such momentous decisions. These should be left to their elected officials. Imagine if flat-earthers won a referendum that determined the future direction of science. Cameron will go down in history as a foolish chancer. 

Below: paperwork that an EU-based importer needs to complete before importing a pallet of goods from the UK post-Brexit. Before Brexit, all that was needed was an invoice. Why should an EU-based importer bother with all this when they can import from Germany, France, Italy or Spain with zero hassle? This is why British small businesses have been thoroughly clobbered by Brexit: exporting to the EU has been made vastly more difficult for them. Clobber small exporters and the result shows up in the nation's GDP figures.

[Thanks to Chris Watts at Intuition Bathrooms, Warsaw]

Britain is repenting. Rejoining the EU will be harder and take much longer than leaving it. No one born this century voted for Brexit, yet it's hurting them most. I hope for a swift return.

This time last year:
Janowiec and Mięćmierz

This time two years ago:
Big Walk to Zalesie Górne

This time six years ago:
My return to central Warsaw after lockdown

This time seven years ago:

From Peace of Mind to State of Elation

This time eight years ago
Last summer before S7 works begin

This time nine years ago
Nostalgia, ideology, aesthetics, emotions

This time 11 years ago:
Civilisation and barbarism – how the former deals with the latter

This time 12 years ago:
Ahead of the opening of Jeziorki's Biedronka

This time 13 years ago:
New views of Jeziorki

This time 14 years ago:
Motorway finally links (the outskirts of) Łódź and (the outskirts of) Warsaw

This time 17 years ago:
Kraków Air Museum

This time 18 years ago:
Quintessential Jeziorki

This time 19 years ago: 
Little boxes, Mysiadło 

Politics: An objective assessment of your subjective reality

WRITTEN ON THIS, THE 37TH ANNIVERSARY OF POLAND'S TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY

So many people today get wound up by things that do not remotely affect their day-to-day lives. Migration is a good example. People living in picturesque English villages that have seen an influx of three foreign workers say they feel “swamped”. Young people with no direct connection to the Middle East drifting into anti-Semitism because of Gaza. The issues may be real enough, but the emotional weight attached to it is often wildly disproportionate to its actual impact on the individual’s actual reality.

This is not to say that migration, war, terrorism or national identity are trivial matters. Of course they're are not! But proportion matters. Russia is an existential threat to Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians and Poles in a way that Israel is not an existential threat to citizens of South London. Islamic terror is an existential threat across parts of Africa and the Middle East in a way that it is not to people living in rural Poland. 

The closer a threat is, the more materially it constrains daily life, the more rational it is for politics to be organised around it. If you like in Kyiv right now, the prospect of being killed by missiles or drones sent at you by a bloodthirsty madman is very, very real.

National politics should, at root, be about two things: the economy and security, internal and external. Citizens have a right to feel safe. They also have a right to expect that their hard work, thrift and enterprise should be rewarded by growing prosperity. When governments fail on these fundamentals, anger is justified. When anger is transferred instead onto distant symbolic causes over which neither the citizen nor, often, their government has much practical control, politics becomes emotionally satisfying but civically useless.

Sitting here in rural Poland, I see a country on the rise. That rise is not accidental. Macroeconomics are not just a matter of government policy; they're also the aggregate result of habits, incentives and behaviours of millions of people, earning and spending money. If people are entrepreneurial, hard-working and forward-looking, the economy moves in one direction. If too many people become comfortable sitting back on generous welfare benefits, it moves in another.

There is a simple test. If there is something you can do about a situation you dislike, do it. If there is nothing you can do, then moaning is pointless. And 'doing something' does not mean shitposting on social media. It means acting in the real world.

Don’t like massive increases in traffic, density and suburban overdevelopment? Move out to the countryside. That's what I did. Don’t like the direction of your country? Build something, employ someone, stand for office, volunteer, organise, write, teach, invest, persuade. Face to face, not online. [Ditching Twitter/X in November 2024 led to an instant improvement in my mental wellbeing.] Politics should not be a theatre in which people pin their frustration onto remote causes. It should be the practical art of improving the conditions of life where one actually stands. Delivering solutions rather than winning arguments.

We are approaching the tenth anniversary of the Brexit referendum; the UK economy is some 3.5% to 4% smaller than it would have been according to official reckoning. That's a huge difference to the budgets of households on the edge. Diddly-squat to the billionaires who convinced the precariat to vote Leave.

This time last year:
Farewell, beloved grapefruit

This time two years ago:
Sixty-Six and Two-Thirds

This three years ago:
Marching for Openness and Normality
[We have it. Let's not get complacent.]

This time six years ago:
40th anniversary of the Osieck railway accident

This time six years ago:
Moonrise, Nowa Wola

This time seven years ago:

Awaiting the Summer Sublime

This time ten years ago:
4 June - a date remembered for...?

This time 11 years ago:
Corpus Christi, rural Mazovia

This time 12 years ago:
25th anniversary of Poland's transition

This time 13 years ago:
Poland's infrastructure progress

This time 15 years ago:
Wetlands in late-spring

This time 16 years ago:
Jeziorki's flood of floods: Puławska and Pozytywki

Jeziorki's flood of floods: Sarabandy and Karczunkowska

Jeziorki's flood of floods: Trombity and Kórnicka

This time 17 years ago:
Another time, another place

Andrew Marr's 'A History of Modern Britain'

There's never a good time to write a contemporary history. Historical narratives need closure. Loose ends need tying up, threads need to be neatly summarised. Causes linked to effects. The start-point of any history is easier to set than its end, and the choice of where to begin a modern history ends up defining the work. 

I picked up Andrew Marr's A History of Modern Britain (2007) having watched Adam Curtis's 2025 BBC documentary, Shifty. Curtis starts his look back at what's gone wrong with Britain by dropping the pin on May 1979, from the day Margaret Thatcher became prime minister. On the other hand, Andrew Marr's narrative (which came out as a BBC documentary in 2007 and in book form later the same year) starts in 1945 with the general election that brought in Clement Attlee to Number 10. This was as radical a moment as the one that ushered in the start of Thatcher's revolution. Attlee's Labour government brought in the Welfare State and the National Health Service, it nationalised large swathes of the British economy, it started decolonialisation, and introduced major educational reforms. All this against the backdrop of national bankruptcy and the onset of the Cold War.

Whilst I cannot quibble with either start date when it comes to analysing the state of the UK, I'd say that bringing Marr's A History of Modern Britain to a conclusion in 2007 was settle on the worst end-point possible at which to wrap up. For the shit was months away from hitting the fan. The global financial crisis would usher in austerity, the Tory-LibDem coalition and ultimately lead to the Brexit referendum. But Marr's documentary was in the can before Tony Blair had resigned as prime minister, to replaced by Gordon Brown just after the entire series had aired.

With that major proviso – one that was entirely out of the author's hands – let me go on with my thoughts. I'd very much like to place Marr's History of Modern Britain alongside Shifty as a significant explainer of the forces that shape contemporary Britain. However, they differ greatly in form and in content. 

Shifty begins its narrative when I was already a young man, whilst History of Modern Britain begins 12 years before my birth. I recognise Marr's portrayal of postwar Britain, it's hopes and its handicaps as the world I was born into; grey and drab, but getting brighter year by year as the goodies of consumer market, and innovation in technology and marketing, were rapidly disseminating through society. 

The optimism of Labour, the steady stuffiness of the pre-Thatcher Tories. I remember well the 1964 general election, Labour's victory, its slogan, 'Go Labour!' and prime minister Harold Wilson talking about the "white heat of the technological revolution" that prompted my father to vote Labour (something he'd never done before, nor indeed again until much, much later). Hovercraft, supersonic airliners and the GPO Tower, augmented by fictional visions of the future (Fireball XL5, Stingray and Thunderbirds) grounded in the heroic recent past (Airfix kits of Spitfires and Lancasters, Churchill tanks, HMS Ark Royal and Commando soldiers). This was all before Shifty's timeframe.

Marr, being a first and foremost a political journalist, is at his strongest dwelling on the political intrigue going on behind the scenes and the personalities. The downfall of leaders, from Harold Wilson through Thatcher and Blair, is well recounted.

Popular culture is neatly covered, but with a strong generational skew towards the 1970s when the author (born in 1959) was growing up. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Kinks, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Roxy Music, the Sex Pistols, the Clash, Ian Dury, the Jam, the Police, the Specials, UB40, Live Aid all get a namecheck or two, but there's no mention of hip-hop or rap, Oasis or Blur – popular music fizzled out with the onset of Marr's adulthood. And indeed mine (it could be argued that compared to the 1970s, contemporary popular music is feeble).

History rhymes. I was reading this book's coverage of the run-up to the Iraq war ('weapons of mass destruction) with the run-up to the Iran war going on ('weapons of mass destruction'). I was reading about Peter Mandelson's contribution to Labour's 1997 election victory just as he was being arrested on charges of abuse of public office. The seeds of Brexit were sown, with a major contributory factor being Tony Blair's decision to open the UK labour market to Poles and citizens of the other seven countries that joined the EU in 2004. Instead of the 13,500 migrant workers forecast by analysts, over a quarter of a million turned up within a year, with many settling in rural parts of England and Wales that hadn't seen a foreigner in centuries.

Marr's prequel to A History of Modern Britain, the BBC documentary series The Making of Modern Britain (2009) is readily available on YouTube to watch (sadly,  A History of Modern Britain isn't). One way or another, I'd recommend reading the book though. And having it on your bookshelf, especially if you or indeed your parents, lived through these years. It's a gripping read and never becomes dull, not even in the minutiae of fiscal and macroeconomic policy details. 

Having said that, Marr is more small 'c' conservative than Curtis – his approach to history more conventional. The two work well together; for me. A History of Modern Britain is an excellent guidebook to Shifty, providing a historically rigorous framework upon which can be stretched the canvas of Curtis's compelling vision.

This time two years ago:
A family 'what-if' and the soul

This time eight years ago:
Work proceeding around Jeziorki

This time nine years ago:
Karczunkowska reopens to traffic

This time 14 years ago:
Goodness gracious!

This time 15 years ago:
Muddy feet, Warsaw 'pavements'

This time 16 years ago:

Cycling and recycling

This time 17 years ago:
Winter clings on to the forest

This time 18 years ago:
Toyota launches the iQ

This time 19 years ago:
Old school Łódź

Britain changes course

Up for much of the night to watch the results of the 2024 UK general election. I went to sleep at quarter past two, woke up at half past four, then a nap between quarter past eight to wake at quarter to ten. Just over four hours of sleep then. But what a night.

This election can be characterised as the electorate punishing the Conservative government after 14 years in power; an anti-Tory rather than a pro-Labour vote. Sir Kier Starmer's Labour party won broadly rather than deeply. Its vote-share went up by a mere 1.6% from its pathetic 2019 performance under Corbyn, whilst the Tory vote-share plunged by 19.9% compared to 2019.

This was the biggest Conservative loss of all time ever – the worst result in the party's 190-year history, losing 250 seats, including many ministers. The Tories were mangled from every direction, losing seats to Labour and the Liberal Democrats, a process made easier by Reform splitting the right-wing vote.

The Liberal Democrats made their biggest gains ever, up from just eight seats to 71, the best Liberal result since 1926 on a vote-share of 13%. As a demonstration of how the UK's first-past-the-post voting system works, consider this: Reform won a 15% vote-share which yielded it only five seats, whilst the Green Party won four seats – but on a 7% vote share. The LibDems and Greens showed the importance on focusing on key battlegrounds, whilst Reform, by standing candidates in all constituencies, were clearly intending to damage the Tories as badly as possible rather than seriously attempting to win all those seats.

Turnout was low at 60% (down from 68% in 2019); opinion polls had for so long been predicting a massive Labour win (and massive Tory defeat) that many people might have felt little inclination to vote. Having said that, Labour's low vote-share can also be attributed to tactical voting. In many constituencies where Labour had little chance against the Tories, Labour voters cast their votes for the Lib Dems, and in constituencies where the Lib Dems had little chance against the Tories, Lib Dem voters cast their votes for Labour. This worked well for both Labour and the Lib Dems.

Scotland* decidedly turned its back on the Scottish National Party. Labour now have a massive chunk of Scottish MPs. The SNP was left with a mere nine of the 47 Westminster seats it had in the previous parliament. Wales is now without any Tory MPs, while in Northern Ireland Sinn Féin has become the largest party, not because it won more seats (it still has seven), but because the Democratic Unionist Party lost three and now only has five. This suggests that nationalist pressure in Scotland or Northern Ireland won't be a big worry for Sir Kier Starmer's government.

* Counting is still in progress in a remote Scottish constituency so the final result may change.

Wither the Tories?

If the Conservatives want to return to power, the party needs to move back towards the centre rather than towards the right. Extreme left-wingers Michael Foot (in 1984) and Jeremy Corbyn (in 2019) only served to turned moderate voters off Labour, extending its period in opposition. So analogously, if the Tories decide to turn further right in an attempt to scrape votes from Reform, they will only stay away from power longer. The stage is now set for a battle to decide whether the Tories want to return to centre-right moderation or veer in the direction of the extreme right. The shake-out of Tory MPs mean that the economic libertarian wing (Liz Truss, Kwasi Kwarteng, Jacob Rees-Mogg) are gone, helping the out-and-out migrant-bashing populists.

Below: the moment that Labour secured its 326th seat, thereby securing its parliamentary majority with  three seats swinging to Labour. Sir Kier Starmer is only the third Labour prime minister to have been elected to office in my lifetime – Harold Wilson in 1964 and Tony Blair in 1997 being the other two (neither James Callaghan nor Gordon Brown became PM by winning a general election).

The opinion polls overestimated the size of Labour's majority. Here are the last five surveys published before election day (final score: Lab 412, Con 121, LibDem 71). Just look at how wildly out the Survation poll of 2 July was! The IPSOS exit poll was far closer (Lab 410, Con 131, LibDem 63)

Don't mention the 'B' word

Asked by the Guardian whether he could see any circumstances where the UK rejoined the single market or customs union within his lifetime, Starmer said: “No. I don’t think that that is going to happen. I’ve been really clear about not rejoining the EU, the single market or the customs union – or [allowing a] return to freedom of movement.”

Those words were like a kick in the teeth to me. Had I read them a week earlier, I would not have cast my postal vote for Labour – for me, the UK's rejoining  the EU is my number one political priority when it comes to UK-Polish relations. I want a strong UK and a strong Poland in a strong EU. Preferably not one dominated by the Franco-German axis.

So – the new government has a massive task ahead. Without a return to frictionless trade with the world's richest trading bloc on its very doorstep, it's hard to see how the UK economy can grow enough to deliver the public services that Labour have promised the electorate. Also, worth bearing in mind that the Tories still have a working majority in the House of Lords.

This time last year:
Lawn to meadow, meadow to forest

This time four years ago:
Town and country in summer

This time five years ago:
Across the Pilica to Strzyżyna

This time six years ago:

West Ealing to Castlebar Park – waiting for Crossrail

This time seven years ago:
Trump flies into Warsaw

This time eight years ago:
Making Poland's railways safer

This time 17 years ago:
Lublin and the Road

The Long Review of 2022 (Pt. II)

For the land of my birth, 2022 was the Year of the Two Monarchs, the Three Premiers and the Four Chancellors. The death of Queen Elizabeth II was sudden and unexpected; but once the news had been digested, a process of acclimatisation began immediately. Getting used to saying 'the king' instead of 'the queen'; talking about 'His Majesty's Ambassador' instead of  'Her Majesty's Ambassador' when referring to the same person; realising that the monarch who had ruled since before my birth was no longer on the throne. 

A change of prime minister is something that happens far more often than a change of monarch - in my lifetime one monarch per 64 years, compared to one premier every four-and-half years. But to see three prime ministers in one year - and that's a year without a general election - has been unprecedented.

Brexit is the underlying cause; the liar Johnson was finally thrown out of No 10 by his own party, to be replaced by the hapless Liz Truss, a weak and wavering human being, unsure of whether she was against the monarchy or for it, which party she was in, or if she was in favour of remaining in the EU or a Brexiteer. Her innate weakness was seized upon by the 'ultras' in the Tory party who wanted someone pliant in No 10 who they could manipulate to push their radical agenda - lowering taxes for the wealthiest in society. Together with her chancellor of the exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, she terrified the markets with a combination of cash hand-outs (to help cope with the energy crisis) and tax cuts. Kwarteng's budget resulted in the pound falling to $1.03 and almost £20 billion being spent over the next four weeks by the Bank of England on a bail-out to save the value of pensions.

Truss was out after 45 days - an absolute record, "a shorter shelf-life than a lettuce", also ousted by her own party. She was replaced by Rishi Sunak, the first British prime minister that I don't viscerally object to since pre-referendum Cameron. I found myself hurling abuse at the TV set or monitor whenever May, Johnson or Truss spoke about Brexit - but somehow Sunak doesn't fire up the same emotions in me. Yet his stunning wealth (richer than King Charles III, richer than Trump) makes him out of touch with people's everyday concerns - and it shows at every PR stunt that has him interfacing with reality (buying fuel in a petrol station, serving homeless people at Christmas).

The upshot of all political turmoil is tragic for me; the country that was once the world's number one soft power, an exemplar of good governance and common-sense solutions, has in just a few years become a global laughing stock. Once upon a time, "examples of British best practice" were usually worth following or at least making note of. A mere six and half years it took to turn this situation around diametrically.

Brexit is damaging the UK economy way beyond what one would expect from cyclical downturns - even those exacerbated by a European war and a global pandemic. Britain's growth next year (-0.4%) and into 2024 (+0.2%) is forecast to be among the lowest among the OECD group of the world's richest nations. It's clear that life in the UK for the average citizen is worse today than it was in 2019, before Covid, before the UK left the single European market, and before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. All those three factors need to be taken together, yet other European economies affected by the pandemic and the war are faring better - not having cut themselves off from the world's richest trading bloc.

I do not feel the chill winds of the British economy directly - only in the way Brexit impinges on my freedom of movement and increasing financial restrictions, inability to send gifts to the UK without them being intercepted by customs for duty payment etc. However, at work I see this every day - the UK has cut off its nose to spite its face. Brexit is working asymmetrically - hurting British exporters much more than it's hurting Polish exporters. Why should any Polish firm bother importing goods from the UK and deal with 17 new onerous procedures when it can buy similar goods from Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Holland or Sweden? British corporates can pay for the necessary legal advice, accountancy services and logistics to ensure their goods continue to reach their EU customers - but Britain's small- and medium-sized exporters - selling pallet-loads rather than truckloads - are at a clear disadvantage.

Trading the other way, Britain has still not imposed border controls on food and products of plant or animal origin (postponed until 1 Jan 2024), nor changed from the CE conformity mark to the new UKCA standard (postponed to 1 Jan 2025). So British food producers have massively lost out in competitiveness to their EU-based rivals.

In the long term, Britain's return to the EU is inevitable - the only question is when it will happen. Mere demographics will make this so; of the 17.4 million who voted for Brexit, maybe around a million and half are dead, whilst no one born this century voted to leave the EU. Generation Z has had its prospects blighted by Brexit - freedom of movement, freedom to work and study across the EU, but above all the fact that the UK economy will be shrinking in size relative to where it could have been had it stayed in.

The next few years will see Britain eating humble pie. Its economy will be increasingly lagging behind those of EU member states - Poland's GDP per capita is expected to exceed the UK's  by 2035 (and if you strip out London by 2030). Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng wanted 'growth'. Growth is hard to achieve if there are around 1.2 million job vacancies in the economy. But then the referendum was about 'taking control of our borders' and stopping highly motivated workers from across the EU coming to the UK to pick fruit, work in bars, hotels and restaurants and look after Britons in their hospitals and care homes. So there you have it - low growth (and indeed, low unemployment), high inflation and far less choice in the shops.

I will return to the UK to celebrate the day it rejoins the EU - and not a day sooner. If you voted Leave and have not yet repented - you are my life-long foe.

This time last year:
Wintery gorgeousness and filthy air

This time two years ago:
Jakubowizna - moonrise kingdom

This time five years ago:

Rural sunlight, Derbyshire

This time eight years ago:
Derbyshire in the snow

This time nine years ago:
Is Britain over-golfed?

This time 11 years:
Everybody's out on the road today

This time 12 years ago:
50% off and nothing to pay till June 2016

The Monarchy - my arguments for

Watching the funeral of Queen Elizabeth, and commenting on it for five Polish media channels, I found myself having to contrast the role of a hereditary head of state vs. an elected one. I must say - I prefer the former - though with an important caveat - lineage. The late Queen, and now King Charles III, have both spent much or all (in the case of the King) of their childhood and youth preparing for the role of monarch; Britain's Royal Family has a solid and generally reputable track history.

Having a head of state that is above party politics is such a blessing, which I can see so clearly in Poland where the current head of state is so deeply connected to the ruling party. I have written before about the desirability of a 'no-party state', in which there are no political parties, only technocrats elected to ensure citizens' protection (from crime, from foreign aggression, from disease, from setbacks in life through social security, from unscrupulous entrepreneurs) and that citizens have the wherewithal to flourish (education and infrastructure). 

The Queen's dedication to her duty, a lifetime of service, is at odds with the often venal motives that drive mere politicians (power -> money-> more power -> more money -> ad inf.). I see little that's noble in party politics right now in either Poland or Britain. In both cases, it is based upon poorly-educated voters who have become the power base for a cynical and manipulative self-interest group in the age of social media.

In her life, the Queen has tended to unite rather than to divide; in death the more so. There is no serious republican movement in Britain (Ireland has a different issue for obvious historical reasons); there are no politicians in parliament today calling for the monarchy to be abolished - although Liz Truss once did so in a previous iteration (the one before she became the Tory Remainer that she also once was. Hardly 'a lady not for turning'). Would the British really want a presidential head of state? I doubt if there's more than 15% of Britons in favour of that.

Yes, the Royal Family can be accused of living a life of luxury (and for those not directly in line for the throne, that life can also be quite louche). Though the Queen lived in splendour, that splendour was an inescapable part of the show, part of the magic. A cycling monarchy, like those low-profile north-west European royals, would not stand out enough from the common citizen; sadly, that reflects the status hierarchy of the human condition.

Once upon a time, royal families acquired that status through brutality, often as the victors of local and regional battles determining who owned and ran what. England went through two civil wars before emerging with a Royal Family that would evolve into what it is today. The fact that there's no controversy about a Windsor's right to rule (rather than some other pretender to the throne of different lineage) suggests that the continuity and tradition inherent in the system is working. The Queen is dead, long live the King. We all know that. No waiting for a puff of white smoke over Buckingham Palace, no re-counting ballot papers over and over until the right result comes in. 

I would caution Britons who look forward to the abolition of monarchy; the alternative can be much, much worse (see America 2016-2020).

This time last year:
Seaside, Sopot

This time last two years ago:
Repeatable moments of joy

This time three years ago:
Spectacularly glorious day, Ealing

This time six years ago:
Evolution, the future and us

This time eight years ago:
Relief as Scots vote to remain in UK

This time nine years ago:
The S2 opens all the way to Puławska

This time ten years ago:
Thundering ghost from out of the mist

This time 11 years ago:
Push-pull for Mazowsze

This time 12 years ago:
Okęcie runway repairs are complete

This time 14 years ago:
I know that painting from somewhere...

We still don't really know where we are

Up, up, up go the numbers - new cases - a new record. Poland, UK, US - Covid surging everywhere. And although numbers of deaths are also hitting new records here in Poland, they are no longer rising in step with new infections, suggesting that the disease is becoming less deadly, the treatment more effective.

But what of Covid's after-effects? Stories of people who recovered, left hospital months ago but are still feeling far from well are legion. I have read on Twitter that in the US, health insurance companies are allegedly announcing that they won't be extending or writing new policies for people who've been tested positive for Covid-19 - even though they may have been asymptomatic. In the UK, only 8% of the population tested have shown they have antibodies to Covid-19. So a long, long way to go before herd immunity kicks in.

The race for a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, which in early summer seemed to be a sprint, now looks like a marathon. Unsurprisingly, Putin's announcement that Russia has one has turned out to be dubious. AstraZeneca announced that a volunteer involved in clinical trials had shown side effects, and the trials were temporarily halted - this is normal for clinical trials, one can only hope for the best.

Meanwhile, the global economy stutters. Some countries are doing better than others, for various reasons (a separate post about this soon). We don't  know where we are with this - businesses can't plan, are reticent to invest. But the bolder ones are taking bets on how the post-Covid world will look. We just don't know when a post-Covid world will emerge.

Simply from the epidemiological point of view - no one knows. On my Twitter account, I pinned the following tweet from the president of the Polish Virological Society: "We have calculations that show that by 7 April there may be 10,000 cases in Poland and by 11 April, 20,000 cases are expected. We hope that this will be the peak and the epidemic will start to fade away." This, from an expert. Note the two dates: 7 April and 11 April. And between them, a doubling of cases. Right now - even with the massive jump in cases we're seeing in Poland - cases are doubling every five weeks - not four days. And the epidemic is not fading away. I predict the second wave will really smack into us around the end of the first week of November, once the clocks have gone back, once the weather turns to dull grey rain drizzle and sleet, and our physical and psychological immune systems have weakened at the prospect of five more months of darkness and cold.

There are fewer deaths per thousand cases. But what of the long-term effects of the virus on the body? Some viruses (like the common cold and flu) come and go and leave no trace. Others, like herpes or HPV linger in the organism for the rest of your life, just waiting until your immune system is weakened by insufficient sleep, poor diet, stress, or compromised by another infection; then they reemerge to assert themselves again. It seems that Covid-19 falls into this category.

How should governments react? Boris Johnson's communication skills have failed entirely. When something like this happens to a prime minister at a time of unprecedented national crisis, you know his days in office are numbered.

So much depends on common sense within a population, and common sense is a matter of education and innate intelligence. The media noise around the current upsurge in cases will trigger behavioural changes in different populations in different ways. Some will take extra care - stay away from other people as much as possible, wash hands, keeps hands away from face, wear a mask in public, observe social distancing. Some will consciously ignore these guidelines, while others will just bumble on as they have done, not thinking, not reacting, not showing gratitude for good health to date.

A final thought to bear in mind. At the beginning of March of this year, had every single human being on this planet self-isolated themselves for 14 days - at whatever cost - the pandemic would have been over by the end of March. That's it. SARS-CoV-2 would have been dead. History. Wiped off the face of the earth, literally. Yes, there might have been deaths - maybe even a lot more deaths than Covid-19 has caused up to now, but it would have been over. Could we - as a species - have managed that?

This time six years ago:

Thoughts occasioned by today being equilux

This time nine years ago:
The magic of Sauvignon Blanc from New Zealand's Marlborough region

This time ten years ago:
Grandson of Poles elected to lead UK's Labour Party

This time 12 years ago:
Give me sunshine!

Brexit - what next

I realised that hopes of preventing Brexit were dashed the moment Farage announced that the Brexit 'Party' Co. Ltd. would not be standing against incumbent Conservatives, across their 317 seats. This meant that on those constituencies the pro-Brexit vote would not be split. Yesterday's parliamentary elections in the UK were a straight choice between Brexit and Marxism. Corbyn's Labour got the pounding it so richly deserved. The lowest number of Labour seats since 1935; the first time that a party in opposition for over nine years actually lost seats. An utterly useless, shameful, Brexit-enabling performance.

So what next? Johnson has a 80-seat majority in the House of Commons, easily enough to get the Withdrawal Agreement Bill through Parliament and the UK formally out of the EU by 31 January. (Failure to so, it should be remembered, will lead to a no-deal crash-out).

The Withdrawal Agreement Bill is the easy bit. The hard bit will be to complete an economic Free Trade Agreement and the political Future Relationship Agreement. These will be hard because time is tight. Johnson might be celebrating today, but soon the reality will dawn. The transition period, which follows immediately after the UK leaves the EU, finishes on 31 December 2020. The very same day it was due to finish had Theresa May managed to secure a Brexit on 29 March this year. Unless extended (again, with the agreement of all 27 EU members plus the UK), the transition period will be nine months shorter than anticipated in Article 50 - and all the detailed stuff will need to be worked out during that time. It will need to be done hush-hush, away from the tabloid headline-writers.

If Brexit can no longer be stopped, it needs to be as economically and politically mild as possible. A cold not a flu nor chronic bronchitis. One that does not lead to dismemberment.

I do have faith in Her Majesty's institutions - in the Civil Service - to do the right thing, to provide the right advice, to ensure no cliff-edge, no unexpected no-deal scenario suddenly popping up. Remember - the Civil Service has done right up to now. Yellowhammer. The Civil Service will not allow the UK to be flushed down the toilet by zealots. Wise negotiations leading to a trade agreement that allows for bilateral trade with the minimum of extra red tape or tariffs. And a political agreement that keeps the UK as close as possible to the EU. For the good of all parties.

Remember, Putin has been aggressively pushing for Brexit from the outset. His agenda is to splinter the West, exacerbate divisions. Putin's trolls will undoubtedly still be militating for a no-deal Brexit to happen somehow, and to break up the United Kingdom.

This time two years ago:
Kick out against change - or accept it?

This time four years ago:
Warwick University alumni meet in Warsaw

This time five years ago:
Pluses and minuses of PKP InterCity

This time six years ago:
When transportation breaks down

This time 11 years ago:
Full moon closest to Earth

Politics and personal responsibility

I've long considered myself more of a conservative than a socialist, a small 'c' conservative believing in a small government that delivers essentials services and regulating a free market, personal freedom and responsibility - but freedom that does not step on the rights of others.

My favourite British politicians were many of those in government between 1991 and 1997 - the John Major years; Ken Clark, Michael Heseltine, Chris Patten, Geoffrey Howe, Malcolm Rifkind - decent, pragmatic men who have left the Conservative Party that it was then, the one I used to vote for.

I do not like any of the current British conservative government; I consider they have taken a wrong turn somewhere along the road and would not (were I still living in the UK) vote for them. Lightweights, lacking moral fibre or any great intellect. The most ideological, the least pragmatic Conservative government of my adult lifetime.

This from David Gauke MP, a former Tory now standing as an independent in South West Hertfordshire:

The fact that John Major, Michael Heseltine, Ken Clarke, Chris Patten, George Osborne, Amber Rudd and Rory Stewart have all endorsed me suggests that the Party we’ve all supported in the past no longer exists.

The alternative in Thursday's General Election* is the Labour party, led by Jeremy Corbyn - who has taken it down another wrong turn. It is not the party of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, but something akin to the Socialist Workers' Students' Organisation, a bunch of leftie students out of touch with economic reality. Corbyn's ideological proximity to Soviet Marxism repels me utterly. His fence-sitting uselessness when faced with Brexit appals me. He would make a disastrous prime minister.

From the Financial Times:

Rarely have British voters been presented with such stark choices, ranging from Jeremy Corbyn’s hard left economic policies to Boris Johnson’s pledge to drive through a hard Brexit. But the election’s outcome is still in doubt

My personal manifesto is based upon my own dislike of asking others for help. By not expecting help from government, there's more help for those who need it more than I do. Self-reliance rather than entitlement. My freedom ends where others' freedoms begin. Your freedom to roar through Jeziorki regardless of speed limits ends where my freedom to walk safely along streets lacking a pavement begins. Your freedom to burn crap to heat your home ends where your neighbours' freedom to enjoy unpolluted air begins. Your freedom to worship (or not) whatever deity you choose has no end - as long as you don't impose upon my freedom to do likewise.

Brexit is a mistake; I have not had any answers from any Leavers as to how the UK will make up lost economic ground by quitting the EU, the world's richest trading bloc on the EU's doorstep. Nor have any explained in what way being in the EU these past few decades has hurt them in their lives personally, nor what EU law has held them back from achieving their personal potential. Brexit will be bad for the UK, which may well splinter as a result; it is bad for Poland, bad for Europe, bad for civilisation.

Tomorrow's election is pitifully painful. People who wish to stop Brexit (over 220 opinion polls taken since July 2017 show a definite preference for remaining in the EU) are torn between wasting their vote on a party that has no chance of power (the LibDems) or voting Labour with the risk of inviting the Marxist Corbyn into Number Ten to unleash his dangerous ideology on a nation. Tactical voting makes sense in many constituencies - but is there enough discipline among Remainers to see it through?

It is a tragic choice. I'm glad it's not a choice I'm having to make. I'm sad my father won't make it to the polling station this time.

* This is the first UK General Election to be held in December for 96 years.

This time last year:
Consciousness, memory and spirit of place

This time two years ago:
Polish Perivale

This time three years ago:
Power in the vertical

This time seven years ago:
And still they come [anomalous flashbacks that is]

This time eight years ago:
Classic glass

This time nine years ago:
What's the Polish for 'pattern'?

This time 11 years ago:
"Rorate caeli de super nubes pluant justum..."

Winding down, moving in, keeping on

Scene at the Blue Ocean fish and chip shop on Pitshanger Lane last night. An English couple in their 70s are seated in the restaurant section, waiting for their meal. I take a small table by the window, one other table (for four) has a reservation, there are a few more tables for two.

It's a long wait at the Blue Ocean as everything is freshly cooked. The Greek-Cypriot waiter (who's also manning the fish fryer) takes a phone call and comes over to the couple. Apparently, there's a large group coming, and would they mind moving over to one of the tables for two. They move, but he's not happy. I can tell by the way he slams his half-empty Coke can on the ledge. Soon a group come in, to take the vacated table for four; two adjacent tables for two are pushed together to make a single long table for eight. The group settles in. They are Italian, stereotypically voluble. Hugs, kisses, ciao, bellissimas and all at vocal volume ten.

The English couple are served their fish and chips, and eat in silence. Grumpy is not the word. Then another, smaller, party arrive. Four of them. Portuguese. Not as loud as the Italians, but also speaking in forrin. Add the Greek-Cypriot waiter and myself, in from Poland though born and raised locally, and the English are outnumbered seven to one.

Pitshanger Lane is very European - French is often heard along with other languages. There's a French primary school across the railway line in Hanwell, preparing pupils for the long-established Lycée in South Kensington. The influx of well-heeled foreigners into the area has benefited the look and feel of Pitshanger village; it is a delightful place to live, but property prices are high.

But for people who were born and grew up here, the changes have made Ealing unrecognisable compared to how things were half a century ago.

Migrants work harder than the native community; these are people ready to leave home for new opportunities. Leave a wealthy country like any EU member state of Western Europe, and you'll be coming over for a very well-paid job. But migrants from poorer countries will settle into service-sector jobs, work hard, ensure their children are equipped with the education to rise into better employment.

Japan, an economy that's been virtually flat for the past three decades, has continued excluding migrants from its economy. It faces demographic challenges that are a harbinger of what the Western world can expect in the near future. Migrants fill ever-increasing gaps in labour markets; the challenge is a cultural one. Migrants need to be sensitive to the feelings of the indigenous population and adapt to their new environment - which does not mean abandoning their culture.

The UK economy is currently growing at a far slower rate than Poland. Many Poles I know in the UK are moving back to Poland or considering such a move. When I think back over the excellent healthcare my father was afforded in his final years, I struggle to remember any doctor or nurse or pharmacist that was English or British. They were nearly all migrants or children of migrants.

People get lazy as they get older and more comfortable. The will to get out and work hard dissipates as the need to keep the wolf from the door abates. When the Brexit issue is sorted out, one way or another, and the dust settles, will migrants keep coming to the UK? Where will they work? Will there be enough labour to keep the economy from stagnating, as the Japanese one did from 1991 onward?

[I miss my father. While writing this blog over the past 12 and half years - one eighth of a century! - I was always conscious that my father was my most loyal reader. Every now and then as I wrote this piece, I was thinking about him, how he'd respond to my points... he's gone now. I do miss him.]

This time last year:
Socialist-realist Tychy

This time four years ago:
Face to face with the UK retailing scene

This time five years ago:
Bricktorian Birmingham

This time seven years ago:
Welcome to Lemmingrad

This time nine years ago:
Dream highway

This time 11 years ago:
The Days are Marching

This time 12 years ago:
First snow, 2007

Marchin' again

Six months on from the last anti-Brexit demonstration, time to take to the streets again. Same route - Marble Arch, Park Lane, Hyde Park Corner, Pall Mall, Trafalgar Square, Whitehall, Westminster. Similar circumstances - on 23 March, it was seven days from the then-Brexit deadline; today it's 11 days before the third deadline for leaving the EU. We shall see.

Estimates for the numbers on this march range from the BBC's 'tens of thousands' (ridiculous, just look at the photos) to 'two million'. If the agreed number for the last march was finally reckoned to have been 1.0m to 1.1m, my own guesstimate as a participant in both would be in the 1.4m to 1.5m range.

Left: this banner is crucial in its insight: suddenly, you realise that 'nobody born this century voted for Brexit'. Yes! Of course! And yet it is precisely those born this century that would be suffering from having their wings clipped by this monumental act of folly. Those who have come of voting age this month were just 14 when the referendum happened. And during that time, some 900,000 people who voted Leave have died.

Right: literally the only anti-EU placard I saw all day. Well, there was a chap in a Nigel Farage mask sitting in the Garfunkel's by Trafalgar Square with a sign reading 'Losers! Go Home' - I think few even noticed him. However, this guy in a pixie outfit was harder to overlook. He was standing on a stepladder in the middle of Piccadilly with a sign denouncing the EU as 'the Beast of Revelation Chapter 17'. I think he just needs a friend.

Below: I like this banner as it puts Brexit into a global perspective - a power-play in which Britain is carved up between kleptocrats and plutocrats.

Policing was heavier than in March. Two helicopters were deployed this time. Yet just as in March, the demonstration was entirely peaceful.

This time last year:
Ealing and West Ealing memories

This time five years ago:
The autumn sublime in Jeziorki

This time six years ago:
Enduring Ealing - Victorian and Edwardian klimats

This time seven years ago:
Krokowa, Poland's former northern borderlands

This time 12 years ago:
Aerial photograph of Central London

You either got or you haven't got style

This post has been gestating a while in but publication has been speeded up by the hilarious revelations yesterday of Jacob Reef-Mogg'f  rules for his staff in his new role as Leader of the House of Commons. The style guide issued by the Right Honourable Member for the Eighteenth Century has become a source of humour for social media, but it does raise valid questions as to what a style guide should be.

Two weeks ago, I bought my third copy of The Economist's style guide; the first I bought in the late 1980s or early 1990s and was a useful pointer for me in preparing a style guide for CBI News, which at the time I was editing. The first is still in London, the second has fallen to bits over the years. Style guides exist primarily to ensure consistency across any publication, especially one with numerous authors. Key points in any style guide include use of numbers, names, titles, addresses and, comma, of course, comma, punctuation.

I had intended to write about this in the context of Poles writing professionally in English - but the new Leader of the House of Commons has prompted me to change tack.

If Mr Reef-Mogg'f rules show a lack of awareness of familiar conventions in current usage, it's probably because he one learnt these from his English master at preparatory school at the age of nine and has not moved on since.

Going through his list one by one, as a former magazine editor and publisher, I must say that not all of them are wrong in my book. It's just that so many are; some are so hilariously wrong that Mr Reef-Mogg has duly received public mockery for them.

'Organisations are singular' he says. In general, I agree. But...

[from the BBC's style guide:]

Singular and plural

Treat collective nouns - companies, governments and other bodies - as singular. There are exceptions:

• Family, couple or pair, where using the singular can sound odd

• Sports teams - although they are singular in their role as business concerns ("Arsenal has declared an increase in profits.")

• Rock/pop groups

• The police, as in "Police say they are looking for three men". But individual forces are singular ("The Metropolitan Police says there is no need to panic").

• Press and public should be treated as singular, but rewording may be advisable (replacing "The press arrived soon afterwards. It had lots of questions" with "Journalists arrived soon afterwards. They had lots of questions").

Be consistent within a story (don’t say "The jury has retired to consider its verdict" followed by "The jury are spending the night at a hotel").

'All non-titled males - Esq.' he says. A plain anachronism. As a child, I'd see letters addressed to my father as 'Bohdan Dembinski, esq.'. (These letters would usually be signed off by 'your humble servant'.) But this was more than half a century ago. I don't recall ever receiving such a letter in my adulthood. The Economist's style guide doesn't mention 'esq', nor does the BBC's. Even the Daily Telegraph's style guide has no mention of the word esquire/esq. Mr Reef-Mogg'f  lack of temporal awareness and desire to return to Victorian times is living proof of reincarnation.

'M.P.s No need to write M.P. after their name in the main body of text.' There's no need to put full stops between M and P either. It's an Americanism (consider how Americans abbreviate 'U.S.'). In any British media style guide, it will be 'MP' (plural MPs, singular possessive MP's, plural possessive MPs'). "Do not use full stops in abbreviations", says The Economist. But hello? What's this? "...after their name"? Not "...after his or her name"? Suddenly we see a crashing dissonance, the collision of the 18th and the 21st century - the genderless plural possessive pronoun to refer to a singular masculine or feminine noun/proper noun. The introduction of they / them / their with singular reference by the BBC a few years back caused a massive outcry among more reactionary viewers.

'Double space after fullstops (sic)'. No, no, no. This died with the typewriter. And it's 'full stop', not 'fullstop'. This really shows a man out of touch with detail, instructing his staff to do things that are plainly incorrect. Just one space, unless you are an American typist from the 1950s.

'No comma after 'and' '. I assume this is a mistake. How can you construct a sentence with a subordinate clause without using a comma after 'and'? Consider the sentence: "I will catch the six o'clock train and, assuming it's on time, be home at seven." The subordinate clause needs to be bracketed with a pair of commas to make sense. "Detention, Mafter Reef-Mogg! You fhall write out fifty timef : 'A comma can be ufed after the word 'and'."'

'Use imperial measurements'. Remember, this is no longer a back-bench MP writing. This is the member of the Cabinet responsible for arranging government business in the House of Commons. Pints and miles are still in use in pubs and road signs of the nation, acres and square feet still figure in estate agents' windows, TV screens and car wheels are measured in inches, but this is daft. Bushels, roods, chains and quarts? Furlongs, gills, grains and hundredweights? Move on, granddad! Science uses SI units; without science we fail.

Banned words: Mr Reef-Mogg'f list is interesting. Partly prep-school master prejudice (he has banned the word 'got', see below), partly a reaction to political correctness (he doesn't like the word 'equal'), the list also contains words that I bridle at. The chief offender here is the word 'very'. It adds nothing to the meaning of a sentence. Compare 'I was busy last week' to 'I was very busy last week'. The word 'very' is a Trump word, there to lamely pad out sentences. Mark Twain wrote: "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be."

"You either got or you haven't got style"

We all have our linguistic pet peeves; I dislike the overuse of the word 'great', another Trump word. I deeply dislike the word 'societal' when the word 'social' will do. 'Anti-Societal Behaviour Order,' anyone? Comedian Alexei Sayle dislikes the word 'workshop' outside of the context of light engineering. The word 'ongoing' was once a fortnightly source of amusement in Private Eye back in the early 1980s, but is generally accepted today because it has no adequate substitute. Many people dislike 'going forward' (I don't have a problem with it).

Mr Reef-Mogg'f banned-words list also contains an all-too-gentle stab at bureaucratic turns of phrase that really do need rooting out. One example: 'I understand your concerns' (subtext - 'but there's nothing you can do anyway'), but this short selection goes nowhere near far enough at rooting out soulless constructions overused by British civil servants (and indeed bureaucrats the world over). But that's a far bigger issue.

I fear Mr Reef-Mogg'f rules show him up to be a pompous lightweight who appears intelligent because of his accent and background but actually quite lacking in intellectual firepower.

This time last year:
Total eclipse of the moon, Warsaw

This time three years ago:
'Others' vs. 'Our others'

This time four year:
Reducing inequality in Polish society

This time six years ago:
Llanbedrog beach

This time eight years ago:
The Accursed Soldiers - a short story

This time nine years ago:
Driving impressions of the Toyota Yaris
[The car continues to be totally, 100% faultless nine years from new]

This time 11 years ago:
Poland's dry summer

This time 12 years ago:
The UK's wettest summer ever